How the Snake Lost Its Legs has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 13, 2018. ( Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

"The title pays homage to Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories, but within the strict confines of science." (Early in the intro.) I think something is missing here. It says that the Homage is within the strict confines of science. I think that homage can never be that. Is the intended meaning that the content of the book is scientifically correct? -- Ettrig ( talk) 10:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Indeed. I don't think any native English speaker would find this tricky but I'll reword it now for wider benefit. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:How the Snake Lost Its Legs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 04:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

• Why is ref no. 3 a link to a google scholar search?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Gone, guess ref 2 is sufficient context.

• The second, third, and fifth paragraphs in the Contents section needs a ref at the end

Added.

• I think the Publication, illustrations section could just be titled Publications    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Done.

• "As a result, 'The essay, thus, works...' " little redundant    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Gone.

• I did a little copyediting so I guess that's that    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for doing that. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 05:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply